XPost: rec.aviation.military, soc.history.war.misc, or.politics   
   XPost: seattle.politics, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: muratlanne@gmail.com   
      
   "Jim Wilkins"  wrote in message news:10ocha0$1686$1@dont-email.me...   
      
   > https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/415733-on-unarmed-invasions/   
      
   "The implied theory behind the unarmed invaders presumes that we are all   
   indiscriminately citizens of the world. This claim means that everyone has   
   an implicit “right” to go to any country of his choice when necessary. No   
   one has a right to stop him. The country he chooses must accept him. It is a   
   question of both right and compassion. To resist these unarmed invasions is   
   seen as an act contrary to the human good. Thus, the unarmed invaders make a   
   moral claim. Their dire condition entitles them to benefit in the goods of   
   other states. Everyone is potentially a citizen of every other state.   
   Passports, border guards, citizenship requirements are immoral as they   
   discriminate against those who need new domiciles or goods here and now."   
      
   That argument collapses where one person's right denies another's, you can't   
   stop me from taking what was yours. In practice it replaces civilized law   
   with Might makes Right which has largely been the default for much of human   
   history unless an empire such as Rome was strong enough to temporarily stop   
   it. Note that they didn't conquer Egypt or Israel, both were independent   
   kingdoms absorbed after the weaker loser of a local power struggle invited   
   Rome in to help. The Britons resisted only feebly and then depended on Rome   
   to hold off the marauding Picts.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groans_of_the_Britons   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)